Opinion

Laman St figs

Most of Newcastle's councillors say they've got to go, the 14 magnificent fig trees that form the iconic Laman Street boulevard in Cooks Hill. The councillors have been spooked by a consulting arborist's report and a "quantified tree risk assessment" that states that the public risk posed by each of the trees is 500 times the upper limit of acceptable risk.

In my column in The Herald today I question this. What is acceptable risk and its upper limit? Five hundred times that risk means, presumably, that I'm 500 times more likely to be injured when I walk under each tree than I should be.

A great many more trees in Newcastle's many suburbs will, presumably, have a risk rating 250 times the acceptable limit. Phew, they'll have to go too. Thousands will be just 100 times the acceptable risk, and they're for the mincer too. Twenty times the risk is 20 times too high. Even double the risk should doom a tree. I see the campaign to remove Newcastle's trees as the denuding of Newcastle, a new buzz industry that when it expires will leave us with saplings.

Newcastle council has had a risk-abatement strategy for the Laman St boulevard for some time - when the Bureau of Meteorology forecasts wind greater than 80kmh the council closes that part of Laman St to vehicles and pedestrians, and before reopening the street the council checks the stability of the trees. Perhaps this strategy will spare the trees if the wind-speed trigger is dropped to, say, 50kmh. Can you suggest alternative proposals a Labor councillor, Nuatali Nelmes, can take with her when she tries to rescind the council decision on Tuesday night next week?

And have you been troubled by the relentless denuding of Newcastle?

Posted By: Jeff Corbett on 4/12/2009 4:50:00 PM | Comments (39)

Share on
Facebook

Tweet on
Twitter

Email to
a friend

comments

Date: Newest first | Oldest first

There has been a war on fig trees based upon the view of the NCC arborist. Several years ago, I woke one day to find workers cutting down over 20 fig trees in Mayfield (while I was living there). These beautiful trees are iconic (think Laman St and Islington Park etc) but are seen by bureaucrats as liability risks and big weeds. The replacements - where they are planting them - don't even go close to matching them. Let's hope NCC sees some sense about this.

Posted by stevo106, 7/12/2009 9:03:50 AM, on The Herald

Hi Jeff,trees are my religion , if I was ever going to pray to something it would be a tree, sound silly? they give us life , beauty , shade & so much more, we as a community complain too much about risk factors, crossing the road is a more dangerous exercise than walking under the fig trees!! If it is the fact that someone is going to sue the council if a tree falls on them how about a sign that says " walk under these trees at your own risk" problem solved!

Posted by Ash, 7/12/2009 9:07:02 AM, on The Herald

These trees are as much a part of the heritage landscape in Newcastle as the crappy old buildings the Council seems determined to preserve, for the ongoing embarrasment of our grandkids. If they rip them out, they should be 100% obliges to replace them with mature speciments of an acceptable type.

Posted by Abundance, 7/12/2009 9:08:34 AM, on The Herald

I comment on some of these Council matters and I figure that the Councillors can't get it right. They are damnd if they chop the trees down based on arborists report (my feeling is that they should remain). However, I can see, 6 months from now, when a branch falls onto a car, dog (or baby in a pram), the Council will get sued because they knew about the 'significant' risk and didn't do anything about it! Then ratepayers will be all over The Herald commenting on how incompetant the Council are, why didn't they remove/lop those trees when they had the chance, waste ratepayers money in legal costs and compensation, they knew the risks and ignored them, pitchforks to the Council building. How many times have people complained that Council knew about a problem, they didn't fix?? Chop 'em they lose, keep 'em they lose!

Posted by King Idiot, 7/12/2009 9:13:35 AM, on The Herald

While not being an arborist, I am wondering if some/ many as possible branches of each tree be lopped back to encourage new growth thereby lessening the overall weight of each tree's canopy and also lessen the wind sail effect that each heavily foliated tree presents. It also may save the occasional bottle of chardonnay being taken into the nearby intellectual edifice from being hit by a 500 times risk factor falling branch.

Posted by MizJasper, 7/12/2009 9:25:53 AM, on The Herald

Latest research by consultants engaged at the rate of $1.45M a day by NCC shows that the risk of pianos falling on heads is serious - and not covered by public liabilty insurance. All businesses operating from buildings of a height greater than 400mm will be required to complete a "piano crush risk assesment management plan" and submit to council. Council can recommend consultants who are qualified to complete such a plan. Councillors criticising the Piano-crush mitigation measures will be in breach of Council's code of conduct and subject to investigation by a consultant. They may wish to engage a consultant to assist in their defence. I was going to write more on this topic, but I think I'll defer to a consultant who can sort it out for me. Good to see that Council can't do squat to level the numerous eyesores along Hunter St, but is hell-bent on removing one of the few attractive features of the inner-city. Oh well, just goes to show that they are determined to do to Laman St as they have been doing to the city for years. Seriously, who voted for these clowns?

Posted by Scott Hillard, 7/12/2009 9:32:44 AM, on The Herald

Nice! 'Piano crush risk assessment'. I like that. But what about all those falling safes and anvils?? Eh?

Posted by Abundance, 7/12/2009 9:38:46 AM, on The Herald

Trees can be managed by 1.exposure 2.height 3.width or breadth 4. amount of folage left for wind resistance (effective area to wind) 5.center of gravity managed by all of the others. In short (pun) a stump with a small sprouting upwards branch is safe for falling or overtipping but can still be walked into. That will be $20k please as thats all there is - no more! (for physical stability anuyways)! A bit of safe shade and bird habitat can always be there by large scale prunning of the worst 500x risk percieved. That wont stop drunks or cars coming to grief though? ( i can pad this out to 200 pages with illustrations for another $20k)! commonsense is lost to nonsense?

Posted by notashrink, 7/12/2009 9:46:02 AM, on The Herald

Give 'em a break! It's all this State Government cost-shifting that's the blame - innit?

Posted by Scott Hillard, 7/12/2009 9:48:33 AM, on The Herald

My kid is 9 years old. He's no dummy (takes after his mother, or possibly his father, if that's not me). I have been teaching him that life = risk. Successful life = successful management of the risks in life. Note : I'm not teaching him to avoid risk; on the contrary, I am teaching him to seek our risk, assess, manage and embrace risk. Taking risk is the spice of life! There is one overrider : the risk taken must be worth taking. This all started when he decided he didn't need to wear a bike helmet. A quick analysis of the risk of NOT wearing the helmet (death, brain injury) vs the infintesimal inconvenience of wearing the helmet illustrated the concept beautifully, and got him started. Now he quite happily identifies various risks in everyday situations, assesses them, and makes his own choices. He's become comfortable with the concept of risk in life. Rather than becoming a fearful, timid kid, he's a confident, inquiring, self reliant, brave little bloke. Maybe we should take Ash's advice, and put up a sign, and let the grown ups make their own choices? We can't protect people from life, or themselves. Nor should we.

Posted by Abundance, 7/12/2009 9:51:25 AM, on The Herald

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next >